Recapping Benghazi

One year ago, Ambassador Chris Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, and former SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods tragically lost their lives in service to their country.

As we remember them, let us be cognizant that these men aren’t the only casualties of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Others, unknown and unnamed, may have been killed as well. Unsettling as this seems, given what has already transpired around this scandal, the possibility cannot be discounted.

We do know that other assets were wounded on that fateful night. Who they are, we do not know.

According to CNN, seven people suffered wounds in addition to the four who were killed. Some of these wounded in Benghazi suffered very serious wounds. These casualties, according to Congressman Trey Gowdy, had their names changed and have been given aliases. Additionally, they’ve been tucked away in anonymity and dispersed to military hospitals across the nation. Even the congress cannot locate them.

Reports indicate at least 35 CIA officers were present during the attack at the annex in Benghazi. Those CIA officers who escaped without wounds have been subjected to coordinated, sustained intimidation. Outside of normal procedure, they’ve been administered ongoing polygraph examinations at a rate higher than their peers. The reason many suspect for this unusual activity is an ongoing effort to suppress leaks to the media. In other words, it’s to keep people silent.

“You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation.” said one source with knowledge of the bureaucratic atmosphere.

But the intimidation doesn’t seem to stop at the CIA.

Instead it appears to have crossed over to other agencies as well. The former deputy chief of mission in Libya, Gregory Hicks, spoke of being “punished” by top brass inside the U.S. State Department. Another State Department employee, Raymond Maxwell in response to retaliation he suffered wrote a cryptic poem about “lies” and “deceit”.

What is known is that the nexus of U.S. government culminates in the executive branch. Indeed the president is ultimately responsible for what his agencies do, fail to do or continue to do. It’s why many eyebrows have been raised at the administration’s bristling and continual stonewalling when simply asked “Where was the president that night?”.

This is pertinent because the situation in Benghazi developed over the course of eight hours – toward the end of which Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods lost their lives.

Normally, when you’re defensive about something, it’s an indication something is askew.

Another sensitive question is “Who gave the stand down order preventing a rescue?”.

According to Conservative Report Online the answer is Obama’s closest aid; Valerie Jarrett. Of course having someone other than the president discharge the office is unsettling and highly problematic to say the very least. But given that Barack Obama was absent the Situation Room and playing cards during the greater portion of the bin Laden raid, it seems par for the course.

Equally disturbing are numerous reports indicating that the CIA operation in Benghazi was in place to supply arms to Syrian rebels. A former U.S. attorney, Joe DiGenova, who represents a whistleblower on Benghazi, has even claimed that 400 missiles went missing the night of attack.

Exactly what the full truth of Benghazi is, one cannot be certain. Information slowly drips out. When it does, the information goes viral and is assembled in many different ways.

When pertinent questions are asked, attempting to honestly sort fact from fiction, reporters either get stonewalling or hysterical responses such as Hillary Clinton’s famous meltdown, “At this point, what difference does it make?”.

And it doesn’t help when the administration brands the deaths of four Americans a “phony scandal”. The fact that they’ve resorted to PR branding, rather than rigorous pursuit of the truth, is perhaps the most informative development of all.

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.